Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
1…4445474950…95

Comments

  • Options
    #1382
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I'm sorry but in what other Western country is a f*^%#n Bishop deemed to be an expert on issues of Obstetrics and Gynaecology?

    He's not . His position is a holdover from when the hospital was founded by the church. He has a very hands off approach in the running of the hospital and I understand he's trying to change it so the Archbishop doesn't automatically get a position.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    People voted to give the unborn the right to life.

    In a civilised progressive society this is what one would expect.

    People also voted in the same referendum to give an equal right to life to the mother. After the Supreme Court ruled that this meant an abortion could be carried out if a woman's life was at risk, they voted in later referendums not to restrict this right for women who's life was at risk from suicide.

    If you're going to use how people have voted on this matter, you can't just pick and choose the referendums that suit you.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Find a psychiatrist to ask this, I am just reporting what 113 psychiatrists out of 127 replied to a survey with.

    I am not an expert so will not pretend to be one just to answer your questions.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Reality is psychiatrists do a tough job and a majority do not see abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation.

    There were 477 registered psychiatrists at the start of 2013. 113 is not the majority of psychiatrists.


  • Options
    #1383
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    "The shame and disgust of being raped"

    This is how the woman will feel not how society will see her so there is no "Stigmatizing" of her.

    Why should someone who has done nothing wrong feel shame and disgust ?

    Why would killing the child be a cure for shame and disgust ?


  • Options
    #1384
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    If she has done nothing wrong and nothing exists as you claim, why would you want her to get an abortion ?

    As you know well, in our hypothetical scenario, my daughter is the one who wants the abortion. So how am I stigmatising her by assisting her to carry out her wishes?

    If she didn't want an abortion then there would be no abortion. It would be her choice !


  • Options
    #1385
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Again your back to trying to blame and stigmatise her and the child and perpetuate this, when neither of them did anything wrong.

    As bumper said, this is how she will feel, not outside stigma. Dirty, unclean, ashamed. And while I am lucky enough never to have been raped, I am speaking from personal experience.


  • Options
    #1386
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Why should someone who has done nothing wrong feel shame and disgust ?

    Why would killing the child be a cure for shame and disgust ?

    Because she won't have to live with a constant reminder of it, and have to pretend to be happy about it, and deal with labour, and then either have to raise it and look at the face of her rapist every day for the rest of her life, or give it up for adoption and wonder if every child of that age she passes in the street is the one she gave up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1387
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Why should someone who has done nothing wrong feel shame and disgust ?

    Why would killing the child be a cure for shame and disgust ?

    That's something you would need to ask a rape victim

    Here's a few places you might visit get an idea from actual victims

    http://www.pandys.org/escapinghades/guiltshame.html
    Although what happened to them was not their fault, many survivors experience both guilt and shame after being sexually assaulted.

    http://www.911rape.org/impact-of-rape/self-blame-and-shame
    Feelings of guilt and shame are common reactions following a sexual assault. Because of misconceptions about rape, some victims blame themselves, doubt their own judgment, or wonder if they were in some way responsible for the assault.

    http://www.dancinginthedarkness.com/articles.php?show=9&arc=196
    "The feeling of shame is so intense for rape victims that many never tell anyone what happened to them....Despite more than two decades in change of social attitudes about rape, I still found it difficult not to feel ashamed when others reacted to me with embarrassment or discomfort. And this feeling of shame silenced me...Rape shame is hard to escape"

    http://www.familycrisiscenters.org/site/rape_feelings.html
    Guilt
    A survivor’s feelings of guilt and self-blame will have an effect on her decision to reach out for help. Many women have internalized the idea that women are to blame for rape.


  • Options
    #1388
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    kylith wrote: »
    As bumper said, this is how she will feel, not outside stigma. Dirty, unclean, ashamed. And while I am lucky enough never to have been raped, I am speaking from personal experience.

    I'm sorry to hear that, and you should never be made to feel that way, nor should any child who has equally done nothing wrong.


  • Options
    #1389
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that, and you should never be made to feel that way, nor should any child who has equally done nothing wrong.

    You mean the few unformed cells that have absolutely no feelings or thoughts whatsoever?


  • Options
    #1390
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that, and you should never be made to feel that way, nor should any child who has equally done nothing wrong.

    that is a common feeling among abuse survivors, it can be worse for rape victims who are often not believed or made to feel a sense of blame because they were drunk, wearing certain clothing etc.


  • Options
    #1391
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that, and you should never be made to feel that way, nor should any child who has equally done nothing wrong.

    If the pregnancy is terminated at an early stage there will never be a child to worry about. So you can concentrate on the born woman instead, remember her? The born woman who has thoughts and feelings and a life of her own?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1392
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Muise... wrote: »
    So they just strung the case out because they had no idea that pregnancy is a developing condition and they thought prompt consideration was unnecessary?

    There is no evidence that they 'strung the case out' at all.


  • Options
    #1393
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    lazygal wrote: »
    If the pregnancy is terminated at an early stage there will never be a child to worry about. So you can concentrate on the born woman instead, remember her? The born woman who has thoughts and feelings and a life of her own?

    Yes, but there is also another innocent human life involved, pitting them against one another is not a solution to anything.


  • Options
    #1394
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that, and you should never be made to feel that way, nor should any child who has equally done nothing wrong.
    No-one made me feel that way. That is the way that having your bodily integrity taken away makes you feel. It is the way that having no say in what happens to you makes you feel. Had I been unlucky enough to have been raped and become pregnant I may well have become suicidal had I been forced to go through with it. It certainly contributed to the eating disorder I developed several years later - it is a way of taking back control of your body.

    This woman was violated twice; once by the man/men who raped her and again when she was denied the right to decide what happened to her body by the Irish state.
    bumper234 wrote: »
    You mean the few unformed cells that have absolutely no feelings or thoughts whatsoever?
    Exactly. A born woman trumps a foetus every single time.


  • Options
    #1395
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Yes, but there is also another innocent human life involved, pitting them against one another is not a solution to anything.

    A human in DNA, but not a life, not until it can live independently.


  • Options
    #1396
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    I feel terribly sorry for the woman in this case however the tragedy this baby has faced is being lost in this discussion and was the affect on babies of this legislation was largely ignore except by pro-life campaigners during the debates on this legislation last year.

    I really wonder how potential severe and expensive disability will influence this babies chance of being adopted. The mothers problems were horrific but they could be overcome,I know they leave scars for a lifetime, but she will have the chance of going on and living her life afterwards, maybe getting married and having children. This baby faces a life of extreme difficultly without the support of loving parents, it's possible he/she will never be able to leave this time behind.

    If the worst happens what will we say in 20 years time when might see this young person on the tv or in the papers telling his/her story of how our state legislation allowed for him to be disabled through early birth and born to a life of suffering?

    This is in the independent from the Master of the Rotunda today.


    Unfortunately Whimsical, the legislation only refers to the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child. The 2013 Act takes no account of the quality of life of either the woman or the unborn child.


  • Options
    #1397
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Yes, but there is also another innocent human life involved, pitting them against one another is not a solution to anything.

    There is no contest. A woman should never be forced to give life support to a foetus against her wishes. I am under no legal or constitutional obligation to use my body to sustain my born children, for example, by being obliged to breastfeed until two years of age, why am I forced to sustain an unborn child against my wishes?


  • Options
    #1398
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    kylith wrote: »
    No-one made me feel that way. That is the way that having your bodily integrity taken away makes you feel. It is the way that having no say in what happens to you makes you feel. Had I been unlucky enough to have been raped and become pregnant I may well have become suicidal had I been forced to go through with it. It certainly contributed to the eating disorder I developed several years later - it is a way of taking back control of your body.

    That's an intresting way of looking at control, but I don't think eating disorders or abortions are ultimately solutions to anything.


  • Options
    #1399
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    efb, conor has so far misinterpreted the Irish Constitution, ignored the opinions of psychiatrists with 20 years experience, ignored the opinion of the UN, and now reinterpreted Ms. Enright's opinion to suit his own argument. He's trying to play legal eagle with the wings of a sparrow. It's right there in black and white -

    Quote:
    The termination was refused by an expert panel.

    It was refused even though the consultant psychiatrists on the three-person panel believed that an abortion was justified on suicide grounds, notwithstanding the advanced gestation.




    The will of a suicidal pregnant woman was taken into account by the two consultant psychiatrists, but ignored by the obstetrician, who also disagreed with the two consultant psychiatrists, and deemed the woman continue with her pregnancy. If the timeline reported in the media is correct, this woman could have had an abortion at 20 weeks, so I find it bizarre that the obstetrician would say at that point the woman in question should continue her pregnancy, and then four to six weeks later have her endure a cesarean section before she was compelled by the High Court to do so.

    The EHCR would have a field day with this if it goes in front of them as in this case both the obstetrician and the HSE trampled all over this woman's human rights and her most basic human right to bodily integrity.

    I also find it bizarre the idea of separate legal representation for the unborn child. This woman had the whole deck stacked against her in terms of the medical and legal might of the HSE who have now taken the child into their care after having been delivered prematurely between 24 and 26 weeks by cesarean section.

    The whole situation, it's monstrous what they put this woman through in order to deliver a barely viable baby who the obstetrician would have known would be putting the unborn child at risk of having numerous health issues, not to mention the mental and physical health issues of the woman a result of one person being able to call the shots. There was no need for the consultant psychiatrists if all they wanted was a determination on the viability of the unborn child.

    I think the timeline is crucial here. So far we don't know for sure exactly what it was. It is the crux of weather this case was handled appropriately according to the law (bad and all as it is) or if there was a stage when an abortion would have been legally allowed. I don't see anywhere else where the obstetrician deemed she should continue with the pregnancy, just that a delivery could be achieved given the late stage of the pregnant. If the pregnancy was already at the stage of viability, it is hard to see how legally any other outcome other than delivery could have been legal, given the proviso that the life of the unborn must be preserved as far as practicable. The timeline, the exact timeline is crucial before we can start appropriating blame.


  • Options
    #1400
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    If only the law had treated the child as a parasite with no human rights it would be great then

    You keep mentioning the "child"

    Does the person who has to suffer any medical and life changing consequences not matter?


  • Options
    #1401
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,424 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    A defenceless child, that has done nothing wrong, also has rights

    Of course a defenceless child has rights. A foetus, however is not a child. At 8 weeks, a foetus has zero brain activity. By terminating a pregnancy at this stage, you are not harming any sentient being.

    Up until about week 25, there are no EEG brainwaves

    If we can declare someone to be officially dead when their brain ceases to produce brain waves, then we should not declare someone to be officially alive before the brain starts generating brain waves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1402
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    There is some seriously twisted logic in posts on this thread.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    I am simply reporting what the experts have said.

    I listened to a doctor on the radio last night who is pro-choice, even he said it is wrong to say abortion is the treatment given the lack of evidence one way or the other.

    You can dismiss to suit your pro-choice views, but you have no evidence to support your view.
    You can attack Patricia Casey but she is far more qualified than you or I with her opinion.

    So Robert, we listen to the experts.


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Find a psychiatrist to ask this, I am just reporting what 113 psychiatrists out of 127 replied to a survey with.

    I am not an expert so will not pretend to be one just to answer your questions.


    I am glad that you accept that you are not an expert. If 113 out of 127 hand-picked psychiatrists responded in a certain way to a survey, would you accept that means 14 of the 127 held a different view and possibly many more outside of the restricted sample?

    Given the disparity of views (even if only 1 holds a different view, there is a disparity), I am sure that you will also agree that requiring approval by a psychiatrist is illogical and that this requirement should be struck from the legislation?
    RobertKK wrote: »
    Yes wow indeed.

    It seems the only treatment for a suicidal woman is an abortion if one was to believe pro-choice people.
    Sure there is no other treatment for suicidal ideation...


    A very crass simplistic rendition of the pro-choice argument in cases of suicide.
    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    No one is screaming or ranting, other than some of the people who wish the child was now dead. I'm not in the slightest bit religious, so I'm afraid your attempted slurs have failed.
    Maybe you should get back to attacking the posts, rather than trying to resort to attacking the poster, or making unsubstantiated claims about anyone who is not pro abortion in this case.


    Definition of irony. Someone asks that posts rather than posters be attacked, and in the same post, accuses others of screaming and ranting.


    This is another sad case where Ireland has once again disgraced itself.

    I am opposed to abortion but I am a man.
    If my girlfriend/wife/sister/mother/daughter etc. came to me looking for advice, I would advise against abortion in nearly all circumstances. However, it is not my decision. It is not my body. I cannot emphasise that enough. We do not live in an ideal world where there is no suicide, rape, incest, deformity or health risks. If we did, there would be no need for an abortion law.

    We give children as young as 16 the right to make decisions in medical scenarios, accepting or refusing treatment etc.

    The law should allow for abortion. It should have a time limit (20 weeks?, an expert should decide) and should allow for abortion in the case of risk to the mother's health, congenital deformity, rape, incest, and risk of suicide.

    There should be no need for panels of psychiatrists or anything like that. One simple assessment in the case of risk of suicide would be enough.

    Women out there who are opposed to abortion won't be forced to have one. Women who fall into one of the categories and wish to have one will be facilitated. Men can continue to advise their female relatives and friends whatever they wish but that is all - the woman decides.

    I will find it difficult to vote down the eighth amendment because of my personal views but it is not about anyone's personal views, it is about what is right and correct in a modern grown-up society.


  • Options
    #1403
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Does the person who has to suffer any medical and life changing consequences not matter?

    Would that be the child or the woman ? I think both of them matter.


  • Options
    #1404
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Would that be the child or the woman ? I think both of them matter.

    The woman matters as long as she is doing what's best for the fetus, not herself then?


  • Options
    #1405
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Would that be the child or the woman ? I think both of them matter.

    It is not a child. There is no comparison between a foetus below the level of viability and the two born children I have. 25% of of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Should all of those receive full state recognition? Should we pay child benefit from the moment of conception if a day old zygote is precisely the same as my toddlers?


  • Options
    #1406
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    The woman matters as long as she is doing what's best for the fetus, not herself then?

    I don't see why one needs to be pitted against the other, niether of them did anything wrong.


  • Options
    #1407
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,953 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Yes, but there is also another innocent human life involved, pitting them against one another is not a solution to anything.

    This is so true.
    The discussion of this case has become very much about a rightfully tragic victim and then one inconvenient life that should have been disposed of earlier. The coldness here to the child that IS born in this case is absolutely chilling.


  • Options
    #1408
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    That's an intresting way of looking at control, but I don't think eating disorders or abortions are ultimately solutions to anything.
    Eating disorders are a coping mechanism. You couldn't control what happened to you, you can't control what you feel, but you can sure as hell control what you eat.

    And an abortion is a solution to an unwanted pregnancy. To force a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want is to take more control from her - it is another violation.


  • Options
    #1409
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I don't see why one needs to be pitted against the other, niether of them did anything wrong.

    A woman who asks for an abortion at 8 weeks should be guaranteed it,it's one of the seriously messed up issues in this country that they can't avail of one. I don't support anyone being forced out of our country to get a service that the moral brigade have objections to. It's still happening except certain people like this woman can't exit the country so you hit the most vulnerable in our state.


  • Options
    #1410
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I don't see why one needs to be pitted against the other, niether of them did anything wrong.

    But a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant she has to suffer the consequences. I've never been pregnant and never will but it isn't easy and I don't see what you achieve by expecting rape victims and people who just don't want to be pregnant to go through with it.

    We don't force people to donate blood or kidneys to save others. Why do it for pregnancy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1411
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    lazygal wrote: »
    It is not a child. There is no comparison between a foetus below the level of viability and the two born children I have. 25% of of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Should all of those receive full state recognition? Should we pay child benefit from the moment of conception if a day old zygote is precisely the same as my toddlers?

    The child is alive and well, I don't see how if it was now dead it would be a solution


Advertisement